Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

If you want to be able to comprehend/retrace what I am talking about, you might want to use the official encyclopedia or the one, which I am going to link below as well, which is in many aspects much more enjoyable than the official one. Furthermore I am going to link to some sources, but usually to the less detailed ones, which offer less but more organized and easier accessible information, mostly the English Wikipedia, just to enable you to confirm that I am not just making things up.http://www.honga.net/totalwar/rome2/index.php?l=en&v=rome2http://dsi0fanyw80ls.cloudfront.net/en/home

I would like to start with the most obvious and least controversial issue: Their lackluster unit roster.

The Thracians were known as ferocious and war-like people and mostly fought as peltasts, carrying javelins, but were also using a variety of other weapons. In addition to that they used, with the exception of generals and nobility, only light, if any, armor, because they valued mobility more than additional protection.

Their skirmishers are represented very well in this game by a variety of missile units, but their melee infantry is lacking and their spear infantry missing completely, which might be, at least in terms of melee infantry, a result of confusing "peltasts" with skirmishers, which they aren't necessarily.

The Sica, for example, is a large dagger, sword, or one-handed falx, which was considered to be their "national weapon" [The "Balkan Sword" introduced with [URL="http://wiki.totalwar.com/index.php?title=Hotfix_and_Festivals_Update_(Patch_13.1)&quot;]Hotfix 13.1[/URL] is sadly no Sica, but a straight dagger instead], although it was also used by Illyrians (which would benefit greatly from this addition to their unit roster as well) and Dacians, and is entirely missing in this game (although the Falxmen use a weapon, which might be kind of similar to it). I would suggest to add melee infantry peltasts to their unit roster, which are using the pelte, Sica and 2 javelins, and are lightly armored like the Thracian Warriors. They would basically be a cheaper version of the Royal Peltasts and in terms of unit quality be between Thracian Warriors and Thracian Nobles, similar to the Chosen Swords of the Arverni. This unit should have considerably more melee defense and less charge bonus than the currently existing melee infantry of the Odrysian Kingdom to represent their use of the Sica, instead of the two-handed Rhomphaia. In case the implementation of a new one-handed weapon should be considered as not worthwhile, the swordsmen could simply be using a Greek Xiphos or for example a Celt sword, although the Sica was probably more common among them and would be preferable. Adding the Gallo-Thracian Infantry of Tylis to their unit roster would probably require the least work, while still being the most justifiable in terms of historical accuracy and their unit cards etc. even fit the design of the Odrysian Kingdom.

Speaking of which, the melee defense of the Thracian Warriors and Nobles needs to be increased. If this creates balance issues, their offensive capabilities need to be reduced, but it is kind of stupid to have heavily armored, well-trained elite melee infantry with shields with less than 1/6 of the melee defense of the basic javelin units. The small shields of these units, which are attached to their arms, since they are using two-handed weapons, were clearly designed to protect them in melee combat, since they offer little protection against most projectiles. They offer the user additional protection, since blocking incoming hits with such a two-handed weapon is considerably more difficult (which is represented well in their stats by a low base melee defense value of 4; their shield, which provides 0 melee defense is the issue), while it offers little protection against piercing projectiles (javelins were favored by the Thracians and arrows for example by the Scythians), due to their small size and the fact that such projectiles would most likely pierce their arm underneath the shield. I would suggest to decrease their armour in exchange for melee defense, but their armor stat is already very low and represents this. Their unit cards need to be changed as well, because the pole of the Rhomphaia is portrayed as way too long, especially in comparison to the blade, which is too short (the hilt and blade are usually roughly the same length, as shown in the game itself as well). The fact that the blade of the Rhomphaia was considerably more straight than the blade of a regular Falx and had a long hilt, enabled the Thracians to use the Rhomphaia like a spear for thrusting - this would absolutely justify a "Bonus vs. Large" by the way [The "Bonus vs. Large" has been added as part of the [URL="http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/130514-Hotfix-amp-Festivals-Update-(Patch-13.1)&quot;]Hotfix 13.1[/URL] today.].

Furthermore the Odrysian Kingdom is completely lacking any own spear-infantry, although it is desperately needed [especially after Patch 15 removed the Bonus vs. Infantry of many melee infantry units, including the Thracian Warriors & Nobles, essentially extremely weakening this faction, which has no spear infantry to benefit from that change] and the Thracians themselves were using a lot of cavalry, they had to fight the nomadic Scythians numerous times and in addition to that were heavily influenced by the Greek culture (especially Athenian and Macedonian), including their military traditions. This is a quote from their description in the game:

Greek styles also permeated the Odrysian's military culture, its traditional cavalry nobility being augmented by infantry in phalanx formation.

This leads me to believe that their lack of spear infantry might be an oversight, rather than actually intended. There is historical evidence that spears were used by Thracians (as by probably everyone else ...) and there is no reason to believe that a faction, which had to defend itself against cavalry numerous times, would have stopped using them, although they were heavily influenced by Greeks, who primarily used spears and pikes. (Theoretically speaking, a Phalanx could have been composed by soldiers using the Rhomphaia as spear, but I didn't find any historical evidence to support this and it can be ignored, since it wouldn't change anything about the fact that spears were used.)

I would suggest adding a cheap spear unit, which represents warriors from the tribal origins of the Odrysian Kingdom, which might also be usable as local garrison unit (since the Odrysian Kingdom is (still) missing any melee/spear infantry in its garrisons, which are comparably small and weak anyway - I consider this as a bug. [Has been fixed by Hotfix 13.1]). They should probably be similar to the Falxmen of the Dacian factions in terms of quality and armour, since these people are no professional warriors, but tribesmen who were called to arms, which is why they make sense as garrison units.

In addition to that either Noble Spears or Thracian Hoplites could be added, as semi-elite or medium (in terms of quality) spear-infantry. There is no reason to believe that the Nobles, who were the only ones using heavy armour, would exclusively be using a two-handed weapon, which makes it difficult to defend yourself and prevents you from wearing a more effective shield. The spear is a solid weapon, which allows you to keep your distance and was in addition to that favored by a majority of Greek states, which the Odrysian Kingdom, especially their nobility, imitated in many ways while adopting their habits and traditions. If Noble Spears would imbalance the Thracian unit roster, because they already have melee infantry with excellent offensive capabilities (although some factions have considerably more effective and versatile unit rosters, especially since the Odrysian Kingdom has no access to pike infantry or units like cataphracts & elephants), I would suggest Thracian Hoplites. Since they are lightly armoured, they would probably be similar to Light Hoplites (or just add this unit to their unit roster, since it's not like Thracians are such different human beings that they need completely different units with names that point out that they are Thracian) of Athens (which were their allies) and thereby also weaker than the regular Greek Hoplites, which emphasizes that they are just an imitation. I would prefer Thracian Hoplites over Noble Spears, because it reflects their adoption of Greek traditions very well, is mentioned in the description of the faction anyway and their unit roster shouldn't consist of too many heavily armoured units, since that is historically inaccurate.

In addition or instead of tribal spear infantry, the Thracians were also known for using daggers or clubs, which their equivalents of "mobs" could be using.

Cavalry

The Thracians were known as skilled horsemen and horses were very popular and common amongst them. During Macedon's rule over Thracia, 1/3 of their cavalry is said to have been composed of Thracians, who were mainly used as skirmishing light cavalry, like Prodromoi, on their left flank. In this game they don't have a big variety or exceptionally good elite cavalry, but their cavalry is cost-effective and decent, which is fair enough.

A nice detail is, that the Thracian Royal Cavalry has a high amount of armour, since they were the only cavalry units using actual armour. The Thracian Horsemen have 50 armour though and are considered as medium cavalry, which is fine, since some of their cavalry used light leather armor, but I would like to see some sort of light cavalry unit to reflect that in many cases they were not using any armour at all (which doesn't differ much from their use of armour in terms of infantry), but that is optional since those units are rarely used anyway in this game. Furthermore the Thracian Horsemen should be changed to Shock cavalry, since that would reflect their historical use and strengths, as well as the use of a spear, much better.

The cavalry of the Odrysian Kingdom was also known to use bows, in addition to the javelins represented by the Thracian Cavalry, which shouldn't surprise anyone, considering that they are sharing a border with nomadic Scythians, once even ruled some of their regions and had to deal with raids and attacks from them numerous times (One governor of Thrace (while Thrace was a satrapy of the Macedonian Empire, which should be able to be recreated in the game by the way) tried to conquer Olbia (which actually wasn't a nomadic settlement, but a Greek colony allied with the surrounding nomadic Scythians), but failed and suffered heavy losses from Scythian raids during his retreat). I don't know whether they recruited actual Scythian horse archers or just adopted or copied their equipment and tactics, but enabling them to recruit the same Bow Horsemen as the Getae should be fine in any case, although they didn't make as much use of bows as them, since the Odrysian Kingdom favored the javelin.

It is also worth mentioning that the Rhomphaia might have been used from a horse back, since its long hilt increased the reach of the weapon and might have allowed devastating slashes to the left and right of the horse, while the straight blade enabled to thrust and to use the weapon like a spear or lance during the charge. Since the Odrysian Kingdom lacks any Shock Cavalry, I would suggest implementing a unit of Melee cavalry, which uses the Sica and 2 javelins, while changing the Thracian Horsemen to Shock cavalry, which would improve their unit roster and make it more versatile, while also reflecting the strengths and historical use of these weapons much better.

Navy

The Odrysian Kingdom wasn't really known to be seafarers worth mentioning and didn't have an own "standing" Navy, but there were Greek colonies all over their coast line, which were paying tributes to the Odrysian Kingdom and were able to provide ships for a fleet to them, if required. One of these colonies was Odessos, which is considered to be the "capital" of the Odrysian Kingdom, which couldn't be further from the truth (I understand though, that the capital of the Odrysian Kingdom was not included in the game for example, in favor of Pulpudeva, which became more important during the Roman rule of the region - it's "Total War: Rome II" after all, although it's sad that the Odrysian Kingdom has to put up with a minor Greek colony as its capital - and can't even change it), since it wasn't even a purely Thracian village/city, but a Greek colony.

I like how their roster of Naval units tries to reflect this fact by enabling them to recruit a Greek Missile Penteres and is referring to their Persian and Roman occupation by allowing them to recruit a Persian Assault Teteres and Roman artillery ships (if that is even meant to purposely reflect anything at all, which it probably does not, since many factions have these), but I don't think that is sufficient. [*They can't even recruit the Roman artillery ships without conquering a Roman Military Wharf first. Why they can't use that "technology" anywhere else after they acquired it or why a Hellenistic Military Wharf doesn't enable them to recruit artillery ships is a mystery to me.]

I don't think that their Roman artillery ships make any sense, since the Thracians resisted Roman rule until ~ AD 46. Greek ships (in general, not only for artillery) would make much more sense, since the majority of their ships were provided by the Greek colonies on their coast anyway and they were under Macedonian rule for quiet a while long before the Romans even cared about Thracia. Though the most important is that there is absolutely no reason for the Odrysian Kingdom, which was allied with Athens, whose "fleets are a force to be reckoned with in the eastern Mediterranean" and "has always had a powerful and effective navy" (according to their own description), and was adopting Greek customs, habits and traditions, including military ones and even their language, to prefer (or even consider) the construction of Celtic ships over the re-construction of the effective ships of their Athenian allies. They definitely had the necessary knowledge, since the Greek colonies were able to provide such ships to them - and one of these colonies is even the capital of the Odrysian Kingdom in this game. ("Raiding"-ships are kind of nonsensical for the Odrysian Kingdom anyway, since the Odrysians weren't pirates and only assembled fleets when they were actually attacking someone. I don't get why slingers in specific are a bodyguard choice for their admiral by the way - the Thracians clearly favored the javelin and I highly doubt that slings were very popular or effective on the open sea, since a sling requires more space to be fired, ammunition on ships doesn't have to be carried by the soldier and a slingshot can not be ignited.)

[Barbarian and transport ships can not ram anymore, since the latest patch, which is even worse for the Odrysian Kingdom than other Barbarian factions, because they do not deserve this additional disadvantage on the one hand and are already have a comparably weak navy on the other hand, since their units can not utilize their charge bonus on ships properly as far as I know, which reduces the effectiveness of the already smaller units of Thracian melee infantry greatly.]

In my opinion the Odrysian Kingdom should be in terms of buildings (and ships) considered as "Hellenistic", rather than Barbarian in general, but that is another topic, which I intend to elaborate in my next post.

Mercenaries

The Mercenary Dacian Bowmen are currently the factional mercenaries of the Odrysian Kingdom for some reason. I don't know why Thracians, which were said to be very numerous and in addition to that popular and renowned mercenaries for other factions, would have only a single Dacian unit as their factional mercenary. Even if it were the Thracian Bowmen, instead of the Dacian ones, I would ask myself why the comparably bad unit of bowmen, instead of more versatile Thracian Peltasts and/or Cavalry, which seem to be more useful in general and represent the usual military tactics of the Thracians much better. I would like to see this changed.

Furthermore I would like to see the Odrysian Kingdom to be able to create client states and/or satraps, in order to recruit levy infantry from their clients. I am aware that subjugating is currently exclusive to non-Barbarian factions, but I think that should be changed (as well as enabling the non-Barbarian factions to sack & liberate for example) and I would like to the the "cultural" group of the Odrysian Kingdom changed to "Hellenistic" anyway (while maintaining the Balkan culture). Enabling them to recruit levy units would already reduce the consequences of their lackluster unit roster by itself, since it would enable the player to recruit something else than the same 2 melee units during their campaigns, which can quickly get very dull, especially since one of them is basically just an expensive elite version of the other one.

Alternatively Barbarian Confederations should be able to recruit all units of the factions, which are part of it. This would enable the Odrysian Kingdom to recruit a variety of spear infantry from their Dacian neighbors, and units, which are using the falx and regular swords, if elite units are included. Even if elite units are excluded from this in a similar way they are not available as levy units from client states or satraps, it would give the Odrysians access to some desperately needed spear-infantry. In addition to that many other Barbarian factions, which are currently crippled by their inability to create client states or satraps, especially in combination with their usually less diverse unit rosters, would benefit from this change as well, although less significantly than the Daco-Thracian Confederation. It would definitely not create balance-issues, especially if you exclude elite units, since most Barbarian tribes that can join the same confederation already have very similar unit rosters and even combined they usually can't match those of Rome or powerful factions like the Seleucid Empire or Egypt, which can even recruit levy units from their clients or satraps in addition to their own.

Agents

I am going to include this in this post, although agents aren't actual units. The Odrysian Kingdom is currently using Celtic agents, which seem to be kind of out of place. That a Celtic female, armed with a spear, is the "Champion" of a Thracian Kingdom, which was recently invaded by Celtic tribes and has currently no access to spear infantry, is just ironic and feels wrong. While a Hellenic Champion isn't optimal either, it makes at least much more sense than the current one. I suggest changing their agents to Hellenistic models, if creating separate ones for the Balkan factions isn't an option.

Please let me know if you agree with my point of view and my suggestions and feel free to add your own thoughts to this discussion. If you disagree with me or anything I have said, please explain it to me, but avoid unnecessary full quotes.

Comments

I would like to continue in my second post, as promised, with the buildings, architecture and infrastructure of the Odrysian Kingdom.

As I already mentioned, I strongly disagree with their portrayal as mere "Barbarians" in this game for multiple reasons, but would like to focus on this, their culture, faction & family traits and initial relations to other factions in my third post. All I am going to say now is that being labeled as "Barbarian" by Hellenic states initially did by no means equal being uncivilized savages. The term originated from the Greek saying "whoever is not Greek is a barbarian" and also applied to the Macedonians for example. The word became an insult because of the arrogance of the Greeks (and later Romans), who considered themselves as superior and more civilized in comparison to any non-Greeks. The Odrysian Kingdom was allied with Athens and they adopted a lot of their culture and traditions, including military tactics and even their language, but I want to focus in this post on their buildings - which imitated Greek buildings as well, even whole polis.

325 - 313 BC Within this period, Seuthes founds an Hellenistic city called Seuthopolis on the site of an existing settlement which serves as his new capital. It is located near Kazanlak, in the Stara Zagora Province of what is now central Bulgaria. It is the only city built in Thrace by the natives, aside from the royal palace on the Sredna Gora mountain.

You should just read these Wikipedia-articles, look at the pictures and then decide for yourself whether these buildings resemble the "Hellenistic" or the "Barbarian" cities of Total War: Rome 2 more, and whether the sanctuaries for Greek deities, which had many parallels to the Thracian ones and were in many cases considered to be the same (Ares for example is said to have been born in Thrace and was widely worshiped there), would fit Hellenistic cities or Barbarian villages more. While I am obviously biased, I am still truly interested if anyone actually thinks that their cities (none of them are actually in the game by the way, in favor of Pulpudeva, which became more important during Roman rule, as I already mentioned in my first post) should be "Barbarian" in the game and would like to know why, if anyone does.

In addition to the fact that the Odrysian Kingdom was imitating Greek polis (and adopting their culture in general), their capital in the game is Odessos. I already said that this is historically wrong in my first post, but since CA is not going to change anything about that and their actual capital is missing anyway, this shouldn't concern us anymore. My point is, that Odessos is actually partly a Greek colony and thereby obviously Hellenistic (like basically the whole coast line, which was occupied by numerous Greek colonies), so it makes absolutely no sense that this city is portrayed as Barbaric fishing village in the game. In reality they were Greek colonists, who were successfully engaging in commerce in the Black Sea, paid tribute to the Odrysian Kingdom (which contributed to their reputation as wealthiest state between the Adriatic and the Black Sea, as described by Thukydides, although a lot of that wealth went into the pockets of the nobility) and had the capabilities to provide whole fleets for them if necessary. There were Macedonian settlements in Thrace too (Pulpudeva for example), which were obviously Hellenistic as well.

I don't want to deny the fact, that many Thracians were living on fortified hills, similar to the Barbarian settlements of Total War: Rome 2, but that wasn't much different anywhere else in more rural areas in the Mediterranean. The tribes occupying the hills and more inaccessible regions were usually considered to be more aggressive and the Eastern Successor Kingdoms can even recruit Hillmen into their armies, which doesn't make the Kingdoms any less "Hellenistic". This circumstance wouldn't change either, if a Hellenistic faction would occupy the region, although the occupied city itself would be hellenized. Furthermore many of these tribes resisted the subjugation attempts of the Thracian Kingdom(s) and are represented by other factions of the game. The Triballi (which should really be "Balkan" people, because they were Thracians, but influenced by Scythians, Celts and Illyrians. Since Illyrians & Thracians share the same culture in this game, they should obviously be "Balkan" as well, but I will elaborate this further in my next post) for example killed multiple Odrysian Kings and represent the tribes of more rural areas, like the Bessoi for example, which didn't acknowledge the "Kings of Thrace". The Celts, who passed raiding through Thrace and settled down in Galatia and founded the state of Tylis are obviously represented by those factions and the Dacians represent the tribes north of the river Danube, which was the border of the Odrysian Kingdom.

While there certainly were Thracians, which were living in Barbarian-like settlements as seen in Total War: Rome 2, the Odrysian Kingdom itself, which unified the Thracian people and adopted the Greek culture in an attempt to become more than mere Barbarians, was clearly preferring (and building) Hellenistic cities and Hellenism in general over the "Barbaric" lifestyle of their kin. In addition to that their coastline was occupied by clearly Hellenistic Greek colonies, including their current capital, Odessos. In my point of view Hellenistic cities would be more historically accurate than Barbarian ones for the Odrysian Kingdom, in addition to providing more diversity among factions (it would be the only Balkan faction with Hellenistic buildings, although the Illyrians should have them as well) than having another Barbarian faction with the exact same buildings (except for the religious ones) as Barbarians at the other end of the world, especially since only the "most important" settlements of a region are shown on the campaign map to begin with, which would be definitely a city or polis in a Hellenistic style, whether it was one of the few built by the Odrysians, Greeks or Macedonians - how the small villages in more rural regions of the generally little urbanized Thrace looked like, is kind of irrelevant for those more important settlements.

I don't think that any changes are necessary or appropriate in this case, except for the garrison, which should be fixed anyway (since it currently is fairly weak and includes no melee units, as I already said) and for all of their buildings, which is why I am not going to mention the garrisons again [also because Hotfix 13.1 just added Thracian Warriors to their garrisons].

Since the Odrysian Kingdom did not have an actual navy at all (except for temporary fleets from the Greek colonies), I thought about representing this in the game by denying them access to a Military Wharf, Drydock and Port. This wouldn't have a big impact on their naval unit roster, since they would simply be able to recruit a majority of the units in the Neosoikoi instead, but denies them access to Level III (or any level) ship hulls and the increased experience ranks of the Military Port, to reflect the fact that they were not "experienced" seafarers at all and did not construct their own ships and therefor can not construct real "Military"-ships with exceptionally strong hulls, since they were just imitating Greek ships. The Docks as primary recruitment-port also make sense, because the fleets, which were provided by the Greek colonies had to be sheltered somewhere.

An alternative would be "business as usual" by giving them access to all port-buildings, since the Greek colonies at their coast line are part of the Odrysian Kingdom in this game, one of them even as their capital, and they obviously had the necessary knowledge and facilities to build proper Greek ships, as you would expect from Greeks.

This is the exact same for all Hellenic factions. The Thracians were considered as exceptionally war-like people and therefor there is absolutely no reason to assume that they didn't train properly for war. They surely didn't train in the exact same way as other Hellenic factions, but I highly doubt that most of them did.

Their equipment was similar to that of Greeks and part of the exchange and adoption of Greek culture and traditions (who in exchange adopted the equipment of Thracian horsemen for example), but those changes were usually delayed and the Thracians were often seen using out-dated equipment. Instead of limiting their access to these buildings, I would reflect this through the technology tree. Only the Foundry should require no technological advancement to be build (since some of their weapons were kind of unique and so effective, that even the Romans had to adapt their armour to them), while the Armourer for example should require additional technologies to be built, because of their delayed adoptation of Greek development in terms of equipment and their little use of armour in general.

This one couldn't fit the Odrysian Kingdom any better. It doesn't change much in terms of missile infantry, which is simply recruited through the Skrimisher Camp-building chain. In terms of melee and spear infantry, I would suggest the cheap spear infantry to replace the Thracian Warriors as cheap standard infantry and enable the player to recruit those instead at a Muster Field. Holosideros Barracks enable the player to recruit the Sica-wielding melee infantry and the Hoplite Barracks obviously Thracian Hoplites. The Royal Barracks allow the player to recruit their elite melee infantry, the Thracian Nobles, which makes perfect sense to me.

I have something else in mind for their cavalry though.

City Centre

This building chain should have some unique features to create more diversity amongst factions, but definetely be Greek in general, since an Agora can clearly be seen in the polis built by the Odrysians. The Slave Market or Trader should probably stay. I didn't find much about slavery in the Odrysian Kingdom, but extraordinarily many Thracians were enslaved and there are stories about poor people, which were selling their own, found or stolen childen into slavery. The Grain Market-chain seems to be fine as well, whether their Barbarian equivalent is used or not doesn't really matter, since its roughly the same anyway. While an Amphitheatron and Odeon might have been rare in the Odrysian Kingdom, horse races as held in the Hippodrome were not, but very popular and common instead. The Pandocheion might make sense, because of the Greek colonies at the coastline of the Odrysian Kingdom, and it description says they "contributed much to the Hellenization of the Mediterranean coast", which fits the Odrysian Kingdom, which was amongst the first to be hellenized.

The Library doesn't seem to fit well into the Odrysian Kingdom though, although they adopted the Greek language and alphabet, I highly doubt that they would have been literate and interested enough to build a considerable amount of libraries in their kingdom, especially since there were only few actual cities. Instead of this building chain, I would suggest either the Mead Hall, because they liked to get drunk, especially after burials (although usually with wine, which is why the Wine Market speaks for itself), or the Great Hall, which makes a lot of sense, because of their tribal origins. Furthermore the Odrysian Kingdom probably tolerated some sub-kings of subjugated tribes, so the High King's Hold would suit the Odrysian Kingdom very well, since there was usually only one true "King of Trace", although there were multiple sub-kings occasionally. I would understand it though, if this building is supposed to be unique for the Getae for some reason.

Industrial

This is basically the same for all Hellenic factions and I don't see any reason to change anything about it - on the one hand because the "industry" of the Odrysian Kingdom didn't seem to be far behind (they had a stone quarry for building materials for one of their cities close-by and created their own Amphoraes) and on the other hand, because I don't really use them (except for the Amphorae Factory to boost commerce occasionally) and therefor don't feel qualified to suggest changes about these buildings.

Agricultural

The Thracians should have the Macedonian Stables instead of the usual Cattle Ranch. Horses were very popular and common in Thrace and since they are known to be great horsemen (they were also known for their good horses) it only makes sense to enable them to get Level III horses, especially since they were under Macedonian rule (barely 10 years before the game starts, they were ruled by the Diadochus Lysimachus). I would suggest to enable them to recruit their cavalry through these stables, like Barbarian factions do. This makes the Odrysian Kingdom more unique as a Hellenistic faction and is part of their tribal heritage.

I am actually very confused by their choice of religious buildings for this faction, both in terms of the choice of actual gods and in terms of the stats that have been associated with them. The first temple, which I am going to suggest, seems to be the most obvious choice actually:

Ares, who is associated by the Greeks with the Thracians for numerous reasons. Thrace is supposed to be "his birthplace, his true home, and his refuge after the affair with Aphrodite was exposed to the general mockery of the other gods". One of his sons is supposed to have been named "Thrax", which basically means "Thracian" and who is considered to be their ancestor. Sometimes "Thrax" is even supposed to be another name for the war-god himself, which is why I would call it a Temple of Thrax, instead of Ares (to differentiate it form the Greek one). I simply can't understand why the war-god himself who was even associated by the Greeks with the war-like Thracians is not represented in their religious buildings, although they worshiped him. This temple would also offer the opportunity for an unique Tier 5 building, since "his golden or gilded shield was kept in his temple at Bistonia in Thrace". The stats of this temple could be roughly the same as the Greek equivalent, but with for example melee attack, weapon damage or charge bonus (on this temple instead of the one of Kotys, since Ares is confirmed to be an actual war-god with special relation to the Thracians, while these stats in case of Kotys seem to be mostly derived from a likely translation of her name), instead of experience for spear-infantry, which is obviously not very useful for the Odrysian Kingdom. The idea behind this is on the one hand, that the god of war supposedly likes an aggressive stance and attacking and on the other hand, to enable players to restore the offensive capabilities of the Thracian Warriors and Nobles, if those should really be reduced in exchange for melee defense.

Dionysus & Sabazios are basically considered to be the same deity by many sources, as result of the synergistic approach of the Hellenic culture to different religions, which contributed to their Hellenization. Sabazios was also often connected to Zeus, as sky father god of the Thracians, but is portrayed as a son of Zeus and Persephone or the mortal Semele in Greek mythology. The more popular version of the "second birth" of Dionysus seems to be that Hera, the jealous wife of Zeus, let Dionysus be ripped apart by Titans, but Zeus recreated him from his heart, which was saved by another deity and thereby turned either Dionysus into Sabazios or the other way around, depending on the source. There are multiple stories about their relation and origin though. Nevertheless they are usually portrayed as some kind of deity of wine (and the whole process of making it, including the harvest), pleasure and ecstasy and according to some sources of agriculture in general and birth (probably related to the harvest of grapes and its own rebirth). That being said, I would merge both of their temples into one of Dionysus (because they are basically considered as the same god and Sabazios seems to have been worshiped by cults with orgies etc., instead of inside of temples). I would also merge both current temples stat-wise, so the temple would provide a considerable amount of public order, and either bonuses to commerce and trade agreements or agriculture. I don't really see how cults, which are performing obscene rituals, which are shunned by the public, are supposed to spread the Balkan culture or how the god of wine is supposed to protect them against all agent actions etc.. A temple of Dionysus could also provide some cultural conversion to the Hellenistic culture, to reflect how the synergistic approach of the Hellenic religion advanced the Hellenization. The possible benefit of that is going to be explained in my third post, because it is related to a trait. The one characteristic of Sabazios which clearly distinguishes him from Dionysus is that he was always depicted on a horse back, which is why I would suggest his temple to provide bonuses for cavalry, in case his temple is supposed to stay separate from the one of Dionysus, although there seems to be no evidence for the existence of such temples.

Derzelas is the Great God of the city Odessos, which is currently the capital of the Odrysian Kingdom in this game. He had his own temples and has been worshiped by a cult. He is supposed to be the god of abundance and the underworld, health and human spirit's vitality and was often displayed with a cornucopia. Derzelas Temple could either provide bonuses to argiculture or commerce and trade, depending on which kind of "abundance" is supposed to be represented and which kind of bonuses the Temple of Dionysus already provides (since overlaps should probably be avoided for the sake of diversity). I have no idea why the Getae can build the temple of this Thracian deity, but not the kingdom of the Thracians, which also rule over Odessos, whose Great God Derzelas was.

Bendis seems to be the Daco-Balkan equivalent of Artemis, the goddess of hunting, which I would associate with missile weapons, although she is usually depicted with a spear, unlike Artemis, but I guess it could be thrown or might be a javelin. I think they confused the stats of the Temple of Bendis with the stats of the Temple of Zibelthiurdos, since that one provides missile damage and experience for missile units. I would basically give the Temple of Bendis the current stats of the Temple of Zibelthiurdos, with something else instead of the additional ship-building capacity, since that doesn't seem to make any sense in terms of the faction or goddess.

I wasn't able to gather much information about Zibelthiurdos, except for that he was apparently using lighting (bolts) in a similar fashion to Zeus. His Dacian equivalent, the thunder god Gebeleizis, was often equated with Zalmoxis, who was an important god to both Dacians and Thracians. He is said to have taught the Getae to believe in immortality, or rather an after-life at his side. The Getae are able to build a Temple of Zalmoxis and I would either enable the Thracians to build their own version of it or enable them to build a Temple of Zibelthiurdos, which is similar to it. I would suggest a temple which provides some public order, protection against any and/or especially zealous agents and cultural aversion.

The Cabeiri are actually a rather mysterious group of "minor" gods, which are worshiped by the Samothracians on an island, but a sanctuary for these deities has been found in Seuthopolis, the actual capital of the Odrysian Kingdom. While they were associated with seafaring as well, they seem to be skilled craftsmen and related with Hephaestus in some kind of way. CA decided to make this temple provide additional wealth through industry, and I agree with that decision, although I am almost never using industrial buildings. I would prefer it to be just an ordinary Tier 4 building though, because the Cabeiri were basically only worshiped by a cult and mainly on a distant island, while Thrax is strongly related to the Thracians and represents their war-like and ferocious characteristics much better. I would prefer a Tier 5 Temple of Thrax, which refers to his gilded shield in Thrace, which is a great opportunity for an unique religious building.

Hellenistic factions usually have 7 different temples, but I guess that the Odrysian Kingdom should be fine with only 6, especially since some Barbarian and especially the Parthians have even less. Notable alternatives for another temple would be Semele, which is apparently considered as a "Mother Earth goddess", although one of the potential mothers of Dionysus was also named Semele and only considered as a mere mortal. Kotys was the goddess of sex and might have been a goddess of war as well, but since all of these aspects are already kind of covered by other gods, I don't see any point in adding another one, especially if comparably little is known about him or her.

It might also be worth mentioning that apparently some of their kings had names very similar to deities, Kotys and Zalmoxis in specific, but I could find little information about these and can't tell whether that is actually historically accurate or whether they were named after deities or the other way around, since some of their kings were considered as descendants of deities as well. Tereus in specific was considered to be a son of Ares himself, which makes it ever stranger that the Odrysian Kingdom can not build temples for Ares or Thrax.

tl;dr: Change their buildings from Barbarian ones to Greek equivalents[= This is the most important part, everything else are details.]; enable them to have a Horse instead of a Cattle Ranch, like Macedon; adapt their temples to the generally more Hellenistic cities and recombine temples, deities and stats to make more sense and reflect their characteristics better; denying them access to an actually Military Port, to reflect that they had no actual navy and that ships were provided to them by Greek colonies instead is optional; having a single actually Barbarian city center building as unique feature of this faction, since a library would be out of place, is optional as well as delaying their access to equipment upgrades through technologies, to reflect their delayed adoption of the development of Greek equipment.

I would like to hear your opinions on this matter, especially on the religious buildings.

[The changes to the encyclopedias, following the changes in the game itself, introduced with Patch 15 made many hyperlinks stop working properly. I removed some of them and will mention and discuss these changes in a separate post in this thread].

This is going to be the third and last OP and I would like to give feedback on the culture, faction & family traits and initial diplomatic relations of the Odrysian Kingdom, in that order.

Beforehand I need to point out that at the beginning of a grand campaign (272 BC) the Odrysian Kingdom has just been restored and regained its independence at least kind of, after its former ruler, die Diadochus Lysimachus died, but was suffering, like Thrace and Greece in general, from invading Celts, which were eventually defeated in Greece and settled down in Thrace and Minor Asia, founding the Kingdoms of Galatia and Tylis. The Odrysian Kingdom was split into multiple smaller kingdoms during this period of time, because different Thracian tribes declared their independence, like the Bessoi for example, while the Celts were driving off or oppressing the Thracians, where they were establishing their own kingdoms.

Culture

In this game the Odrysian Kingdom is part of the "Balkan" culture, along with the Dacians and Illyrians, because the Hellinization of the nobility doesn't justify to consider them as "Hellenistic" (although I would consider them as "Hellenistic" rather than "Barbarian", which is probably why they were Hellenistic before the introduction of the Balkan culture), since there were still considerable cultural differences and the "culture" of a region and faction also includes the populace of the more rural areas, unlike the architecture of the regional capitals. While there were differences between the Illyrian and Daco-Thracian culture as well, I agree with the decision to represent both cultures, although they were not homogenous, in one cultural group in the game, for the sake of convenience. If they were split up, each cultural group would have only 3-4 factions, the same amount of regions and "local traditions" in only ~2 provinces. The Triballi definitely need to be added to the Balkan culture though, since they were a Thracian tribe to begin with, but were heavily influenced by the Illyrians, Celts and Scythians, which makes them somewhat special. Since Illyrians and Daco-Thracians share the same culture in this game, the Triballi can definitely be considered as "Balkan", even if you do not acknowledge them as purely Thracian tribe anymore. That there were some Celtic tribes in the region occupied by the Triballi in this game as well, doesn't change anything about the culture of this tribe itself, but can be reflected through Celtic local traditions in that region.

Faction traits

The Faction traits of the Odrysian Kingdom honestly don't make any sense to me. While the Thracians are known to be popular mercenaries among other factions, I didn't find any sources about considerable, let alone extraordinary, use of actual mercenaries by the Thracians themselves or the Odrysian Kingdom in specific. Instead Herodotus considered them as among the most numerous and potentially most powerful, if they should actually unite, people of that region of the world. I am not entirely sure why a faction with so much potential in terms of military recruitment would make such extensive use of mercenaries that both of its faction traits have to reflect it. According to Wikipedia, "a mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain".

In addition to that the traits by themselves don't make much sense either to me.

Rapid Campaigns: +50% mercenary upkeep costs

Rapid Campaigns? The Odrysian Kingdom is on its knees and just a fraction of what it used to be. It was (and actually still might be) ruled by various Diadochi, broke apart because of separatist tribes and has to deal with an invasion by Celts, which forced the nobility of the Odrysian Kingdom to retreat to Greek Colonies in the Black Sea, for example Pontus. Their next "campaign" is going to be against the Celts in their own territory, driving them out of Greece and Thrace by destroying the city of Tylis - in 212 BC, 60 years after the beginning of the game. Why would that increase the upkeep cost of mercenaries to begin with? Thracians were infamous for plundering and they apparently mainly paid for the upkeep cost of their armies that way. I don't see how rapid campaigns, which result in more raiding and plundering, are supposed to increase their upkeep cost, but that is kind of irrelevant, since they weren't "rapidly" advancing anywhere during this period anyway.

Furthermore it might be worth mentioning, that this is the only negative faction (not family) trait in the whole game. It might be barely noticeable, because mercenaries are mainly recruited for short periods of times as (by the way pretty ridiculous) instant-armies or -reinforcements, since their upkeep cost doesn't make it worthwhile to keep them in most cases, but why they felt the need to give this additional disadvantage to one of the smallest cultural groups in the game is beyond my comprehension, especially since these factions themselves neither have very advantageous starting positions nor exceptionally great unit rosters or anything else, which might justify this.

Promise of Loot: -50% mercenary recruitment costs

This is actually a kind of useful trait, since it complements the primary use of mercenaries well, but it still doesn't suit the Odrysian Kingdom in my opinion. In addition to that I think that it doesn't make any sense to exclude the upkeep cost from this reduction, since the Thracians mainly paid for their armies with the loot from plunder - its not just a "promise" to be able to hire them, but an actual alternative way of payment.

I am going to suggest alternatives to these traits after discussing their family traits, in order to avoid overlaps.

Family Traits

We are playing as the "Royal Family" in case of the Odrysian Kingdom, which isn't very creative but fairly accurate, I guess, unlike "Other Families", which could easily be replaced by "Tribal Chieftains" or "Separatists" for example, which want to separate their tribes from the Odrysians or just wait for their chance to take over the weakened kingdom, which once subjugated them. That would in my opinion create more immersion than a generic political party, which isn't characterized by anything else than not being part of the Royal Family. I can mostly agree with their choice of family traits, but one of them just seems to be completely out of place.

Raiders: +100% income from raiding

I think this should be exchanged with the "Plundering"-trait from Tylis, since the Thracians were known for plunder, which differs from raiding. I don't doubt that they were raiding each other and other tribes as well, but this trait seems to suit the Celts, who traveled marauding or raiding through Thrace into Greece and Asia Minor, who partly settled down in Tylis, much better. The additional income from raiding doesn't necessarily need to be changed as well, but I would consider simply increasing both to +150%, or even +200% like the Ardiaei, since this bonus doesn't affect sacking (which every faction should be able to by the way) etc. at all and the "raiding"-stance is currently kind of underwhelming anyway, at least from my point of view.

Deadly Aim: +2 experience rank(s) for missile recruits

While I like this trait in general, I would consider renaming it and reducing it to +1 experience rank(s) for missile recruits. The Eastern factions have "Great Marksmen: +1 experience rank for archer recruits" as faction trait (which isn't that useful to Pontus, which isn't that Eastern in general, since they can only recruit Eastern archers), and Royal Scythia the "Archery Masters: +1 experience rank for archer recruits"-trait as family trait which is clearly inferior to this trait, since it grants only 1 additional rank of experience and is restricted to archers. I doubt that this is going to be an actual balance issue, since family traits are usually balanced by a negative trait (the Balkan factions even got an additional negative faction trait), but I consider it as a nonsensical inconsistency to portray Thracians as more experienced and/or precise marksmen, regardless of their weapon. The Thracian Bowmen for example are, and should be, clearly inferior to Persian Archers and I don't see why their faction traits should indicate the opposite, especially if horse archers are also going to be added to their unit roster.

I would recommend to rename the trait to "Dreaded/Renowned Skirmishers", reduce the additional experienced ranks to +1 and maybe limit it to javelin-men, instead of all missile units, to represent that different factions excel with different weapons.

Odrysia produces some of the finest bowmen in the world, and any Odrysian general would be wise to take advantage of this when considering his army composition.

They should use that chance to remove this remark from the description of the Odrysian Kingdom, since it doesn't seem to be true in this game at all. They have one comparably bad unit of bowmen, no horse archers and while they used bows in battle, they favored javelins and were known for using them.

Hellenic Emnity: -20 to diplomacy with all Hellenic factions

What? This trait results in -35 to diplomatic relations with Hellenic factions, because of cultural aversion, while the Iceni for example, receive a +10 bonus to their diplomatic relations, because of their "Cultural Aspirations". Adopting the Greek culture, including their military traditions, deities and even their language is apparently not "aspiring" enough to be acknowledged in this game. That there are Greek colonies all over their coastline, which even provided fleets to the Odrysian Kingdom if required, and that the Odrysian nobility recently retreated to Greek colonies at the Black Sea, including Pontus, doesn't matter either apparently - or that they had an alliance with Athens barely 100 years ago and that Thracians were popular mercenaries among many Greek factions. Most importantly though, the Odrysian Kingdom should have an enemy in common with the Greeks currently, the Celts, which invaded Thrace and Greece and settled down in Tylis after they were defeated, but the Greeks like these Celts more than the Odrysian Kingdom, although they recently raided their territory (especially the Galatians, who get a bonus to their diplomatic relation with Hellenistic factions, because they are "Gallo-Graeci", regardless of the fact that they basically just arrived there at the beginning of the game, after failing their invasion of Greece and Thrace). I don't expect them to be get a bonus for "cultural affinity" with Hellenic factions, although they are certainly more culturally affine than the Iceni for example, but that they receive an additional penalty of -20 seems to be completely out of place.

I get that the Greeks might have been wary of the Thracians, because they were a potential threat, because of their great numbers and potential powers, but I highly doubt that there was anything that would justify a general "enmity" with all Hellenic factions, without an exception, which completely ruins their relation to them. The Greek, yet alone the Hellenized factions were not homogeneous at all and frequently at war with one another, with often at least one side either requesting aid from the Thracian Kingdom or at least recruiting Thracian mercenaries. While I absolutely see why the relation with Macedon for example might be strained (which is historically accurate by the way, since the Odrysian Kingdom was conquered by Macedon once again in 202 BC), after they have been ruled by Diadochi for quiet a while and are just reclaiming their independence after the most recent one died, I don't think that it makes any sense for their former allies, like Athens, to "hate" them suddenly, or for factions, which didn't even make contact with them, like Massalia or Bactria, to suffer major diplomatic penalties from "cultural aversion", although the Odrysian Kingdom was very Hellenized and among the most culturally affine with them of any non-Greek/Hellenic factions.

Possible Alternatives

There is a variety of already existing traits of other factions, which would also suit the Odrysian Kingdom and I am going to list a few examples as well as suggest a few completely new ones.

Marauders: +20% income from raiding and sacking
Warrior Society: +1 public order for every war against a neighbouring faction

The faction traits of the Suebi or Germanic tribes in general for example suit the Odrysian Kingdom very well and considerably better than their current faction traits. If the Kingdom of the Thracians, which were known as ferocious and warlike people, who despised other professions according to Herodotus, doesn't qualify as "Warrior Society", then I doubt that anyone else deserves to be considered as such. I have no idea why a Thracian Kingdom in specific would be among the few Barbarian factions, which didn't get this trait, especially if I consider what they got instead.

Plunderers: +25% income from raiding and sacking

While the "Marauders"-trait would certainly suit the Odrysian Kingdom, the "Plunderers"-trait of the Galatians does so even better, because the Thracians had a reputation to love plunder, which was probably created or reinforced by the ferocious Thracian mercenaries. The act of plundering/looting the defeated after a military victory does not equal "marauding", but was a legitimate part of the pay of Thracian armies instead. (I don't care about the additional +5% income.)

This are just a few examples for kind of generic bonuses to specific units, which wouldn't be inappropriate for the Odrysian Kingdom either, but are already so over-used in the game and kind of randomly distributed that I am not going to take them into consideration at all, since the Odrysian Kingdom has plenty of alternatives and is already receiving a bonus to their missile infantry, which suits them better than any other of these bonuses in my opinion. Even something similar to the "Horde"-faction trait of the nomadic factions would be imaginable, although it would need to be renamed, since the Thracians were numerous and the Thracian Kingdoms therefor had great potential in terms of military recruitment.

If the "Cultural Aspirations" of the Iceni are enough to grant them bonuses to their diplomatic relations, the Odrysian Kingdom should actually have such bonuses with Hellenic factions as well, but I don't consider them as "culturally affine" or as actual "Philhellenes", like the Pontians or Cornelia (the Roman family). Instead the "Hellenisation"-trait, from Bactria, seems to fit much better, since it reflects the efforts of the Odrysian nobility to adopt the Hellenistic culture. This wouldn't make much sense in terms of actual game-play though, because the Odrysian Kingdom is part of the "Balkan"-culture (which could turn this trait into a potential negative trait actually).

Hellenized: Public order bonus (maximum of +4) from presence of Hellenistic culture

I would suggest to implement a trait like this instead, which reflects the adoption of the Hellenistic culture, as well as their relationship with the Greek colonies at their coastline and the Greek populace, which lived side by side with Thracians, in their territory. Hellenistic "Local traditions" would have a positive, instead of a negative effect to the public order, because the Odrysians weren't opposed to embrace and adopt them. In addition to that, the Temples of Dionysus for example could spread Hellenistic culture, which would reflect the synergies between the Daco-Thracian and Greek religions. This trait would also not influence the diplomatic relations between Hellenistic factions and the Odrysian Kingdom, since the usual penalty for "Cultural Aversion", should be enough to emphasize the wariness of the Greeks towards the Thracians (its still a difference of 20 in direct comparison to the Iceni or Galatians, which were culturally less similar to the Greeks than the Odrysian Kingdom).

This would be another alternative trait, which would either work as a financial bonus, while adding the drawback of cultural conversion to another culture, or complement the "Hellenized"-trait really well, by turning the small amount of cultural conversion into a benefit. This would be a great trait for Pontus as well by the way. They barely benefit from the additional experience for archers, but Greek colonies play an obviously very important role for this faction. Sinope for example was one of them (which Pontus actually failed to conquer ...).

Village Confederation: +10% wealth from minor settlements
Tribal Conquerors: +10% morale for all units during battles against barbarian tribes

These two traits, from Epirus and the Suebi, could be references to their tribal origins and little urbanized society. The "Village Confederation"-trait would obviously refer to the more rural areas and fortified villages in the more mountainous regions, while the "Tribal Conquerors"-trait would be referring to the unification of Thracian tribes, mostly by forcing them into subjugation.

Internal Power Struggles: Public order penalty (maximum of -4) from presence of Celtic culture
Corruption: -6% tax rate

These are examples for negative traits, which are similar to what could be used by the Odrysian Kingdom. "Internal Power Struggles" for example could be renamed to "Separatist Tribes" and give a penalty to public order from the presence of Balkan culture, since multiple tribes frequently tried to separate themselves from the Kingdom, resisted subjugation attempts and did not acknowledge the Kings of Thrace, or alternatively keep a public order penalty for the presence of Celtic culture, since many Celts invaded and raided Thrace and settled down there, oppressing or chasing away the Thracian population, but that penalty wouldn't make much sense in other regions of the world. The "Corruption"-trait could be renamed into "Avaricious Chieftains", who probably demanded their share of the wealth of the Odrysian Kingdom.

An alternative would be traits, which are referring to the ferocity and blood-thirst of the warlike Thracians, who were infamous for their love of plunder, which could for example penalize not being at war with another faction by decreasing public order faction-wide or increasing the upkeep-cost of all non-mercenary units, since the lack of loot has to be compensated.

This are of course only suggestions and ideas and these traits actually aren't of great significance, but I am kind of unhappy with the current ones, especially the diplomatic penalty with Hellenic factions and the mercenary-faction-traits, which just feel out of place. Which traits you consider as the most valuable or fitting for the Odrysian Kingdom is up to personal preference, but here is an example how the traits of the Odrysian Kingdom could look like, in my opinion:

Faction traits:Warrior Society: +1 public order for every war against a neighbouring factionPlunderers: +25% income from raiding and sackingFamily traits:Hellenized: Public order bonus (maximum of +4) from presence of Hellenistic cultureRenowned Skirmishers/Deadly Aim: +1 experience rank(s) for missile recruitsAvaricious Chieftains: -4% tax rate

This reflects the warlike and ferocious nature of the people of the Odrysian Kingdom, their experience as skirmishers, their infamous love for plunder, their Hellenization and their tribal origins and in combination with a renamed political party even the separatist tendencies of some tribes.

What is not represented yet, is the diplomatic relation between the Odrysian Kingdom and other factions at the beginning at the game, which can be recreated through initial bonuses and penalties to diplomacy with specific factions, which is in my opinion definitely preferable over generalized penalties or bonuses with whole cultural groups, which is bound to be inaccurate in one way or another.

Currently at the beginning of the game, most factions do not have any prejudices against the Odrysian Kingdom, except for the penalties from cultural aversion and the "Hellenic Enmity"-trait, with the exception of the Macedonians, Triballi and Tylis.

I think that the diplomatic penalties to the relation with the Triballi (-36 from broken treaties and -30 from trespasses) and Macedonians (-24 from military actions against Macedonia) are appropriate, including their additional cumulative penalties, since these two factions are at good terms with each other and therefor condemn our actions against the other - although it is questionable whether the Triballi, which were subjugated by Alexander the Great, would have actually cared about military actions against the Macedonians, but that is an entirely different topic. They should definitely be part of the Balkan culture though, since they were a Thracian tribe, albeit influenced by other cultures.

I dislike the initial relation between the Odrysian Kingdom and Tylis though, which doesn't make much sense to me. These factions have a non-aggression-pact at the beginning of the game, which results in Tylis being the closest (and only) "ally" of the Odrysian Kingdom, because of the bonus of +19 to their diplomatic relation from this treaty. If there is actually any evidence to support such a non-aggression-pact, I would appreciate it if someone could present it, because I highly doubt that these two factions could have been at good terms with each other, considering the historical context. The weakened Odrysian Kingdom might have been forced to sign such a treaty for self-preservation, but their relation shouldn't be otherwise neutral then. Some of the Celts, which invaded Greece and Thrace and were raiding the region settled down in Thrace, while others entered Minor Asia and founded what became the faction Galatia, after they were defeated in Greece - that wasn't even 10 years before the game starts, roughly around 277 BC. Without actual evidence I am not going to believe that these two factions were at good terms with each other, although the Celts were raiding Thrace shortly beforehand and then either chased away or oppressed the Thracian population where they were establishing their own kingdom, which is even represented in the game by their "Thracian Oppression"-trait. This non-aggression-pacts ruins the relation between the Odrysian Kingdoms and the Macedonians and Bithynia, which are already bad to begin with, because of the -35 penalty to diplomatic relations with Hellenic factions. Furthermore the Thracians destroyed Tylis in 212 BC and ejected the Celts from Thrace. I consider it as very unlikely that their diplomatic relation was such a roller-coaster-ride and therefor would like to see this initial treaty between them either get removed and/or their general relation changed for the worse, if evidence should support that this non-aggresion-pact it was indeed forced upon the Odrysian Kingdom.

The Getae on the other hand are basically completely neutral to the Odrysian Kingdom, although they share the Balkan culture and are even of the same kin. In my opinion they should get the usual bonus to diplomatic relations of +10, because of "cultural affinity". Furthermore trading needs to be possible across rivers, at the very least at the transitions, which allow armies to cross the river without transport ships. While I would actually prefer more changes to the way trade works in this game, this small change would improve the feature by a lot already. It would allow the Odrysian Kingdom and Getae to trade with each other, which they certainly did among the tribes, instead of portraying the river as a natural obstacle, which made it impossible to trade, although the Greeks already used the Danube hundreds of years before this game even starts as trade route. Furthermore it would give the Spartans, which suffer from the same restrictions of this feature, at least an alternative way to engage in trade, besides betraying and conquering their ally Athens.

There are numerous other factions, which might have had special diplomatic relations with the Odrysian Kingdom, but most of the events, which might justify bonuses or penalties, were too long ago before the actual start of the game (272 BC). The Thracians were for example allied with Athens during the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) against the Spartans and their allies, as already mentioned. Notable might be the relation to Galatia, which was basically the newly founded kingdom of the Celts, which were invading and raiding Thrace beforehand, which makes a strained diplomatic relation between these two factions most likely, or Pontus, whose Greek colonies sheltered Thracian aristocrats, who had to flee from the invading Celts. These are minor details though and can be ignored, since they wouldn't have a considerable impact on the game anyway.

tl;dr: Change the culture of the Triballi to "Balkan", change the name of the "Other families" of the Odrysian Kingdom to "Tribal Chieftains" or "Separatist Tribes" for example, change the faction and family traits of the Odrysian Kingdom to reflect its characteristics better (especially the mercenary-faction-trades and the "Hellenic Emnity"), remove the initial non-aggression-pact with Tylis and/or worsen the diplomatic relations between these two factions considerably, allow the Getae and Odrysian Kingdom to engage in trade over the Danube.

I think this sums up my feedback on the Odrysian Kingdom and my suggestions for improvements. I would like to hear your thoughts about my ideas, even if you only read the tl;dr-summarizations, since this wall of text ended up kind of massive. If you find any mistakes, whether concerning the content or presentation, or know about mods, which improve the Odrysian Kingdom in similar ways as I suggested, please let me know.

I would suggest to add melee infantry peltasts to their unit roster, which are using the pelte, Sica and 2 javelins, and are lightly armored like the Thracian Warriors. They would basically be a cheaper version of the Royal Peltasts and in terms of unit quality be between Thracian Warriors and Thracian Nobles, similar to the Chosen Swords of the Arverni.

Since the Odrysian Kingdom lacks any melee cavalry, I would suggest to add a unit of melee cavalry, either actual elite cavalry

Thracian Horsemen and Thracian Royal Cavalry are both Melee Cavalry and Thracian Royal Cavalry are elite cavalry.
I'm not sure if you have your own definition for "melee cavalry" and "elite cavalry" though.

Do you have a source for this? I was under the impression that they were not used from horseback.

I don't have an English source for this, but the German Wikipedia page about this weapon for example mentions that it has a "devastating effect, especially from a horseback". I don't see any reason why they wouldn't use a pole-weapon on a horse though, since a weapon which has an extended reach and can be properly used for thrusting and charging should perform well in prolonged melee engagements, where horsemen were often simply pulled down from their horses, because regular swords couldn't keep enemies at distance. I honestly would need an actual reason to believe that this weapon wasn't used from a horseback at some point of time, because the weapon itself and horses were common in Thracia and since there were long periods of fragmentation, during which tribes, without standardized cavalry equipment were fighting each other or resisting the subjugation attempts of the existing Thracian kingdom(s).

Thracian Horsemen and Thracian Royal Cavalry are both Melee Cavalry and Thracian Royal Cavalry are elite cavalry.
I'm not sure if you have your own definition for "melee cavalry" and "elite cavalry" though.

Thank you for pointing that out, I indeed confused Melee and Shock Cavalry in that paragraph. I changed it and added the note that in case of additional melee cavalry, which is using the Sica or Romphaia, the Thracian Horsemen should be changed to Shock Cavalry, for the sake of diversity and because spears seem to be better suited for that task than swords, although Romphaia with comparably small blades and long hilts (not as extreme as portrayed in the unit cards though) could certainly be used effectively like spears or lances during charges.

I don't have an English source for this, but the German Wikipedia page about this weapon for example mentions that is has a "devastating effect, especially from a horseback".

I haven't heard of them being used from horseback and I don't think there are any rhomphaia cavalry in DEI or EB. The combination of those makes me skeptical. I haven't personally handled one so I can't say what the issue might be but I think that if it had been effective there would be records of it.

I haven't heard of them being used from horseback and I don't think there are any rhomphaia cavalry in DEI or EB. The combination of those makes me skeptical. I haven't personally handled one so I can't say what the issue might be but I think that if it had been effective there would be records of it.

I am not familiar with DEI or EB, but I found an image during my search, which was called "Dacian Rhomphaia Cavalry", but I have no idea what to make of it and since the creators of such mods and units do probably nothing else than we do - scavange the internet for tiny bits of information about topics probably nobody else really cares about - I don't take these into consideration. Their Rhomphaia seem to have really long poles though.

Yes, I have read that as well. I think I have posted one or a few links to it and (hopefully) mentioned that the Thracians preferred skirmishing or missile weapons, especially the javelin, in general, but were also carrying a variety of melee weapon, usually as secondary weapons. It's kind of sad, that the mechanics of this game aren't really supporting skirmishing melee infantry.

Edit: *A one handed sword, generally a Kopis early on but replaced by a Sica later on.

Weird, I have only read a small fraction of the book (because Google Books wouldn't let me read any more without buying it) and there he said:

The kopis was mostly replaced in cavalry service by a long sword near the end of the 4th century, but Thracian cavalry of the late Hellenistic period also used the sica, a large curved sword. This seems to be the Roman name for any sort of curved sword or knife, as it was also used for the [...].

The Rhomphaia probably came into use around the late 4th century, the date of the first excavated examples.

The second quote can be found by searching the book for "Rhomphaia". He refers to a "long sword", which replaced the Kopis, which apparently wasn't the Sica, since he is mentioning that one separately (which he oddly enough apparently considers as a "large" sword, although other sources seem to refer to it as "large dagger"). During the exact same period of time the Rhomphaia came into use and he mentions that the Romans basically referred to any curved swords as "Sica", which might explain a lot of confusion about these three weapons (a one-handed small Falx is often considered as Sica, while a Rhomphaia is very similar to a two-handed falx, except for the usually more straight blade, and there are probably weapons in between, which could have been considered as either one).

In the end, I am no expert and don't want to draw any conclusions, but it would honestly surprise me a lot if the Rhomphaia, which is similar to the No-Dachi or Naginata in use, depending on the length of the pole, which was as far as I can tell variable (the English Wikipedia page mentions 60-80cm blades and the attached hilts had probably a similar length, while the German Wikipedia page says they were up to 200cm long in total, which might mean that some of them were just generally bigger, or that some of them were proper pole-weapons with 120-140cm long poles), was unlike those two weapons, supposed to have never been used by cavalry, especially since the German Wikipedia page also mentioned the effectiveness on horsebacks in specific (which was either quoted by many other sites or used the same quote as those, but I can't confirm anything) and for long periods of time there was no standardized Thracian cavalry at all.

Personally I wouldn't even bother with this though - if the historical accuracy is as questionable as in this case, I would just use an alternative, like the Sica to create a new cavalry unit, which complements their unit roster. Turn the Thracian Horsemen into Shock Cavalry (and give each of them 2 javelins), which suits a spear-cavalry of usually skirmishing Thracians much better anyway, and replace them as melee cavalry with an unit, which utilizes the Sica (maybe in addition to 2 javelins as well).

Yes, I have read that as well. I think I have posted one or a few links to it and (hopefully) mentioned that the Thracians preferred skirmishing or missile weapons, especially the javelin, in general, but were also carrying a variety of melee weapon, usually as secondary weapons. It's kind of sad, that the mechanics of this game aren't really supporting skirmishing melee infantry.

Skirmishing melee infantry = peltasts. People just seem not to use them that way, but if you look at their stats they are much better in melee than 'pure' skirmishers.

Skirmishing melee infantry = peltasts. People just seem not to use them that way, but if you look at their stats they are much better in melee than 'pure' skirmishers.

Yes, but they have a ridiculous amount of ammunition, which would make them imbalanced if they were actually proper melee units. They should be carrying ~2 javelins and a Sica as secondary in terms of Thracian skirmishers, but since the game does have neither a skirmish- nor "fire-at-will"-mechanic for actual melee infantry, they would be restricted to throwing maybe one volley of javelins and only almost immediately before the actual melee engagement while charging, which can hardly be considered as "skirmishing". While actual skirmisher units with proper melee stats like for example Thorax Swordsmen (something like that, medium quality infantry is needed for the Odrysian Kingdom), but actual skirmishing abilities and a lot of ammunition, would be considered as simply imbalanced, which they probably would be (well, their armour stat would be low, since Thracian skirmishers were barely using any armour at all, but they are carrying pelte, which would provide some armour after all).

Yes, but they have a ridiculous amount of ammunition, which would make them imbalanced if they were actually proper melee units. They should be carrying ~2 javelins and a Sica as secondary in terms of Thracian skirmishers, but since the game does have neither a skirmish- nor "fire-at-will"-mechanic for actual melee infantry, they would be restricted to throwing maybe one volley of javelins and only almost immediately before the actual melee engagement while charging, which can hardly be considered as "skirmishing". While actual skirmisher units with proper melee stats like for example Thorax Swordsmen (something like that, medium quality infantry is needed for the Odrysian Kingdom), but actual skirmishing abilities and a lot of ammunition, would be considered as simply imbalanced, which they probably would be (well, their armour stat would be low, since Thracian skirmishers were barely using any armour at all, but they are carrying pelte, which would provide some armour after all).

Still, on a flanking charge or against other light infantry (hillmen, etc., to say nothing of other skirmishers) Greek peltasts do very well in melee. Follow a cav charge with them as 'mop up' forces, or else use them to put several volleys into the rear/flank of a much heavier unit, followed by a charge, and they will do just fine. Heck, when I've been in a desperate situation and drastically outnumbered, I've even been able to use peltasts/Agrianes to hold off a frontal attack by hoplites in certain points of my line. They lose eventually, but they do decent damage and can hold long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

re: Armour, I could see a Thracian 'heavy peltast' (hybrid skirmish/melee) unit being similar in stats to Agrianian Axemen, but trade higher overall damage, and maybe slightly higher attack for less AP (using swords instead of axes).

While I certainly desire more changes to be made, especially in terms of buildings, which I am currently writing a post about, these changes are a great start. The Thracians hopefully got an at least kind of decent melee-unit with the Sica, which is hopefully meant with "Balkan sword"*. The Bonus vs. Large is hopefully going to make the Odrysian Kingdom less vulnerable against cavalry and reduces the urgency to implement spears a bit.

* In my game the new "Balkan Sword" is just an usual straight dagger. The change just seems to affect the stats of the unit, which is kind of sad, since this would have been a good opportunity to implement the Sica.

I added some remarks to things that have been and have not been fixed by Hotfix 13.1 to the OP and finished my second post, about the issues with the buildings and infrastructure of the Odrysian Kingdom and possible solutions.

Personally I wouldn't even bother with this though - if the historical accuracy is as questionable as in this case, I would just use an alternative, like the Sica to create a new cavalry unit, which complement their unit roster.

I finally finished the third and last OP, after Nico CA encouraged the community to share their suggestions. I am going to add hyperlinks with sources for the third OP later, but the most of my its suggestions are kind of self-explanatory for anyone, who read the first and second OP already, I guess. If you are actually patient enough to read them, please let me know what you think about this matter and feel free to point out any mistakes I might have made.

I neither claimed that the weapon originated in Thrace, nor did I suggest to add the "most elite sica unit" to the Odrysian Kingdom, but mid-tier swordsmen instead and mentioned in specific that the Illyrians would benefit from such an addition to their unit roster as well. Furthermore the origin of a weapon is kind of irrelevant for the quality of units, which is why I am not going to discuss this matter in detail. It is safe to say that this weapon was very common and popular in Thrace, Illyria and most likely Dacia as well during this period of time, which is sufficient historical evidence for the implementation of units using it, regardless of the origin of the weapon.

What a great piece of writing. If CA had spent a fraction of their time on research, instead of thinking up false promises, they could have brought Rome 2 to life with this kind of detail.

I agree that all of what you have described should be implemented into the game. Furthermore, this should be done with all factions.

If I was part of the research team at CA for Rome 2, your post would embarrass and humiliate me. You have gone so much further in your research and thinking. Can you please do write ups of all the other factions in similar terms?

Instead of this kind of detail, in most regards, we got a stripped down game lacking in thought and detail. Really bad for CA. Lots of the older total war games went in this direction and were huge successes. This game went the other way, stripping detail and intricate functionality.

What a great piece of writing. If CA had spent a fraction of their time on research, instead of thinking up false promises, they could have brought Rome 2 to life with this kind of detail.

I agree that all of what you have described should be implemented into the game. Furthermore, this should be done with all factions.

If I was part of the research team at CA for Rome 2, your post would embarrass and humiliate me. You have gone so much further in your research and thinking. Can you please do write ups of all the other factions in similar terms?

Instead of this kind of detail, in most regards, we got a stripped down game lacking in thought and detail. Really bad for CA. Lots of the older total war games went in this direction and were huge successes. This game went the other way, stripping detail and intricate functionality.

This kind of "research" doesn't really require much time though. Writing it down took me longer than getting the information, with a few exceptions of small details, which were either controversial or rare. I'm not trying to humiliate or impress anyone, I was simply looking forward to the release of the Odrysian Kingdom and was so disappointed by their implementation that my campaign ended earlier than any other, because many little details kept bothering me (for example the female Celtic champion, armed with a spear, training my male Thracian warriors, whose faction has no access to any spear infantry at all and was recently invaded by Celts).

No, I am not going to create threads about other factions. On the one hand, I am not as interested or disappointed in other factions and if you don't really care, it's difficult to motivate yourself to gather actually constructive suggestions, especially if you don't know much about them to begin with, and on the other hand, I obviously did this in my spare time (ironically I enjoyed making suggestions for the Odrysian Kingdom more than playing it) and have to take care of other things usually, since these kinds of threads don't pay your bills for example.

Most of it but admittedly not all of it. (Skipped over some of the stuff about buildings )
You've certainly done a fair bit of research and your OP is well written.

I am just asking, because I didn't really expect anyone to read any, let alone all of this. The suggestions for buildings aren't really interesting at all. I just wrote many of them down for the sake of completion, since they aren't supposed to be any different from the usual Hellenistic ones, and to resolve as much doubt as possible by explaining why they would suit the Odrysian Kingdom, at least in terms of the regional capitals represented in the game.

I want thrace to carry weapon like this... i saw many thracian warrior using this weapon...

Sure, it's closed though and I don't know what you expect me to say about it? All 3 of those weapons were used by the Thracians, although your picture of a Rhomphaia doesn't seem to be accurate for the average weapon, in basically everyone kind of way. The hilt seems to be too long, although the supposed length of the hilt seems to vary very much depending on the source, especially in comparison to the blade, which is on the one hand too short and on the other hand even more steeply curved than the Falx on the other picture, although one characteristic of the Rhomphaia was a straighter blade.

These appear to resemble an average Rhomphaia, which matches its usual and description and characteristics, much more than the pole-arm in your picture. While there certainly is a lack of clarity regarding these weapons and especially their distinction from each other, since the Romans supposedly referred to multiple weapons with curved blades as "Sica" and there probably were a lot of weapons in between these different types, which could have been considered as either one, I don't think that the typical Rhomphaia is an actual pole-weapon. I am not saying that such pole-weapons weren't used at all, but if the popular and infamous Rhomphaia would have been in fact a pole-arm like that, it wouldn't be referred to as a "sword" anymore at all, which is why I think their portrayal in the game is kind of fine. Where did you find this picture by the way and what made you think that this is the typical appearance of a Rhomphaia, although you read this article and saw the drawings of found blades?

What bothers me is the difference between their weapons on the battlefield and on the unit cards, which leads me to believe that something is going wrong in terms of coordination at CA. The employee designing the unit cards apparently had a different conception of a Rhomphaia than the one creating the 3d-models, which is similar to the description of the Odrysian Kingdom referring to their adoption of the Hoplite Phalanx while there aren't even any spears in general available to this faction in the game.

Marijan you better stop it before some of the staff members at CA hatch a plan to destroy your life. All this research and hard work is humiliating them and they see you as a threat as you could replace an entire team and its leader. You've got skills and expertise that they would kill for - a harcore fan, communication, dedication, hard work, an interest in Ancient Rome.

I'm sure we will see these special weapons once CA release the mod stuff.

Marijan you better stop it before some of the staff members at CA hatch a plan to destroy your life. All this research and hard work is humiliating them and they see you as a threat as you could replace an entire team and its leader. You've got skills and expertise that they would kill for - a harcore fan, communication, dedication, hard work, an interest in Ancient Rome.

I'm sure we will see these special weapons once CA release the mod stuff.

I majored in using google and wikipedia, that's about it. It's not like searching the internet and writing your finds down as suggestions would be very difficult or time-consuming by itself. I would appreciate it though if you could stop posting these kind of insulting posts, because I didn't try to humiliate, replace or compete with anyone and I highly doubt that pairing this with insults is going to increase the chance of someone actually taking notice of it and taking my suggestions at least into consideration.

Instead I would prefer actual opinions of the content of this thread and your thoughts about the Odrysian Kingdom in general.

This is the level of quality you'll find in mods like Europa Barbarorum (for Rome 1) and Europa Barbarorum 2 (for Medieval 2, soon to be released). You're never going to find this level of quality and attention to detail in a base Total War game though, especially not Rome 2.

This is the level of quality you'll find in mods like Europa Barbarorum (for Rome 1) and Europa Barbarorum 2 (for Medieval 2, soon to be released). You're never going to find this level of quality and attention to detail in a base Total War game though, especially not Rome 2.

This isn't really that detailed at all and the descriptions of many units show that they did at least as much "research" as I did on the Odrysian Kingdom or the Thracians in general, at least the ones which aren't just a copy&pasted text about Thracian warriors.

The suggestions I've made are mostly kind of easy to implement, so I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be possible. While "unique" Thracian units or the implementation of the Sica would obviously be preferable, simply adding Light Hoplites and 1-2 spear units of the Dacians, as well as their Bow Horsemen, which have generic names anyway, and Gallo-Thracian Infantry from Tylis, would already greatly improve their unit roster, without any need to create actually new units for example. Furthermore their lack of spear infantry for example seems to be completely unrelated to any kind of "research", since there is absolutely no reason to assume that any faction during that period of time would have never used any spears. It just seems to be an attempt to create diversity, which kind of failed in my opinion, especially since you are stuck with basically the same melee infantry unit for the vast majority of your Odrysian campaign, which is the exact opposite of diverse.

Changing their faction and family traits or initial diplomatic relations shouldn't require a lot of effort either. The only thing, which might be troublesome is changing the cultural group of the Odrysian Kingdom to enable them to build Hellenistic buildings etc., but that suggestion is kind of based on my opinion on this matter anyway. If they want to represent their tribal origin and the rural lifestyle of many Thracians by portraying them as Barbarian, although their actual cities resembled Hellenistic ones much more and there were Greek and Macedonian colonies and settlements all over the place, I can at least see where they are coming from, although I disagree with that decision.

Actually, im really disappointed when i learned that thrace only received "1" additional unit when they officially became playable.

Well, while the lack of units using the Sica disappoints me as well, what is actually bothering me is their lackluster unit roster, which could have been greatly improved without adding another unique or new unit by simply adding Light Hoplites, 1-2 Dacian Spear unit, their Bow Horsemen and Gallo-Thracian Infantry of Tylis, and their portrayal as mere generic Barbarian, which aren't only exactly like Barbarians at the other end of the world, but also especially disliked by all Hellenistic factions, although they were as culturally affine with them as it gets for non-Hellenistic factions, with the exception of maybe the Illyrians, which suffer from similar problems in general.